Watching the Republican Senate debate, it would not have been surprising if all four candidates had sworn that the earth is flat. Because they went right over the edge.

You saw four candidates who would pay any price, bear any burden, destroy any branch of government, defend any outlandish right to have a gun and deny any reality in order to pander to a narrow and apparently narrow-minded primary base.

The high (or low) point came when the candidates were asked if climate change is real. They greeted the question not only with emphatic “no’s,” but with laughter.

Think about that for a minute. No hint that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that climate change is a real and present danger.

Forget scientists. How about the Pentagon? Its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review says: “The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.”

Well, who believes those soft-headed, do-good ninnies at the Pentagon?

Now, take Thom Tillis (please). He seems to be a smart man. He was a successful business consultant. You don’t do well there by pooh-poohing facts.

Tillis surely knows better. But he’s afraid to say so. He would rather pander to a voting base that is trapped in the iron grip of ignorance.

Which tells you all you need to know about where the Republican Party is today – and where they would take North Carolina and the nation.

Comments

4 comments on “Narrowcasting”

Any republican “consultant” (like you, Gary) could and would find all sorts of things wrong with what the opposing party candidates said in any kind of debate. Your presentation here is not unexpected and to be honest, kind of boring and “same old, same old” because of its one-sided political nature.

If Kay Hagan was a republican, you’d be SO against her. She’s just one more U.S. Senator that has forgotten her state and only shows up in North Carolina when there’s a campaign event or to get money to put in here campaign war chest. Gary, list all those great things Hagan has done for our fair state. I know you couldn’t do that off the top of your head and would have to “research” it…and that is my point.

Your post here is about how the republican field to replace Hagan is bad…kind of stupid…not up to the task. And, you use “climate change” to make that point. But, the fact is, the republican candidates aren’t saying that climate change doesn’t exist. It’s existed since the beginning of time. It’s MAN MADE climate change that they’re disagreeing with. And, yes, there are scientists that say man is creating climate change. B U T…..if you care to actually research it, there are MANY notable scientists that disagree with this and therein lies the problem. You are just like the majority of the severe left/democrats/liberals/progressives in that you know that a HUGE amount of money comes to democrats on this climate change issue from radicals and those people vote democrat regardless of any other issue. So, of course, you support that failed belief.

Again, your post here was not unexpected. It was, however, kind of simple and too much “on script” from the left that directs your beliefs.

All sounded good until you gave away your position. You would have done much better to played the, do anything but don’t throw me in the briar patch. Your pick of Thom Tillis only tells Republicans he is the one you think you can beat. I guess it’s this factor. Tillis the least conservative so in the general, right wingers stay home. I guess a plan is a plan.

Gary, your leftwing ideology is showing. You confuse what you consider ”politically correct” with what is factually correct. The UN’s IPCC has made all sorts of dire predictions and they simply have not come true. Their reports have been exposed as full of false claims. Climategate has exposed the scheming of the supporters of this cult of Climate Scientology to belittle and suspress dissenting views, manipulate data, and ”hide the decline”.

The UN claims 97% of climate scientists agree with them but furnish no proof. A recent poll of members of the American Meteorological Society (over half PhD’s and 80% MA or PhD) by George Mason University demolishes this falsehood. First as to the claim of scientific consensus, only 33% of AMS members believed that there was no conflict on positions on global warming among AMS members while 53% said there was conflict. So a majority of the experts say that there is no consensus, regardless of what the UN and the global warmist ideologues believe.

Of AMS members, 53% believed that global warming was happening and man was primarily to blame. That is only a little over half. Only 34% believed that global warming was happening and it would be very harmful. That is only a little over one third.

The global warming theory is an excuse to increase the powers and scope of government at the expense of individual liberty. Dr. Vaclav Klaus, immediate past president of the Czech Republic, has called the global warming movement ”a budding totalitarian ideology which is the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, and prosperity in the world today”. Thank goodness our GOP candidates reject this totalitarian ideology of global warmism! It is you Democrats who practice this cult of Chicken Little.

The George Mason University poll of the American Meteorological Society has one other interesting result when you look at the crosstabs. They asked the political ideology of the respondents, and they are overall much more liberal than the general population, which I guess one would expect with a bunch of PhD’s. But what is interesting, is that belief or lack thereof in the global warming theory correlates very closely with political beliefs. The more liberal the respondent is, the more likely they are to be believers in global warming, and the more conservative they are, the less likely to believe. The differences there are stark. So conservative meteorologists tend not to believe in global warming, while the more liberal a meteorologist is, the more likely he is to believe in it.

That just goes to show that global warming is not about science at all. It is all about politics and ideology. But any real scientist would know that. Real science is not done by consensus, and the debate is never over in real science. After all, it was once the ”settled science” that the earth was flat.